If you want to run away
and never be seen again,
don’t come here
Gerard Rochford
The July poem
Film
Dharmendra Singh reviews ‘Black Swan’
Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) is casting for the lead in his new version of ‘Swan Lake’ and is captivated by the grace and control – and pulchritude – of Nina Sayers’ dancing. Nina (Natalie Portman) is a gifted ballerina, but has become so through a life of submission to her controlling mother (Barbara Hershey).
We’re never clear who’s manipulating who in Darren Aranofsky’s warped psychological thriller. Leroy has a lecherous side and will say anything to bed any of the girls he’s supposed to be training. Lily (Mila Kunis) – Nina’s main rival – is also desperate for the lead part and will stop at nothing to overthrow Nina. Or is Nina manipulating herself? Has the unattainable goal of perfection she – or rather her mother – inculcated in her impaired her psyche? Nothing is as it seems – or is it?
Beauty might be the effect of ballet, but the process to get to that beauty is shown to be ugly. The film’s technicians did much to establish the distinctive look. Colour has been drained, leaving only shades of black, white and grey to saturate everything: a stylistic device, I suspect, to reinforce the White Swan/Black Swan – good versus evil – metaphor. Attention has obviously been paid to choreography, but it would have made sense to show more of what Portman had learned. Artifice will always be exposed as something artificial.
I don’t know what it says about me but I am drawn to artists who suffer for their art. Portman trained and lost weight (20 pounds) for a year to obtain a lissom body. She suffered an array of injuries, including a severe concussion and a twisted rib.
The biggest injury was the absence of her renowned acting ability. And I say that knowing she has come a long way since her unforgettable Lolita-esque character in ‘Leon’. The horror element in the story did something to overshadow her performance.
Cassel, who is on my list of favourites, is again on fine form playing one of those hate-to-love but love-to-be types. It was nice to see Hollywood queen Barbara Hershey, whose appearance isn’t tokenistic.
Sean Penn once said of ballet that you didn’t have to like it in order to appreciate it. That’s my feeling about this film.
SR accepts no advertising or corporate backing. We depend entirely on the generosity of our individual supporters. Help SR to flourish by becoming a Friend. [click here]
Royalty
Walter Humes
‘Are you looking forward to the Royal Wedding?’ My questioner was well aware that I am not an ardent – or even a lukewarm – royalist, and was perhaps hoping that I would launch into an extended anti-monarchical rant.
To confound his expectations, I gave a sweet smile (rather a creepy image, I know) and replied: ‘I am looking forward to it immensely. The comic potential of the event is limitless’. Short of leaving the country, it will be impossible to escape all the nonsense that will accompany the occasion, so we may as well make the most of it from whatever perspective, enthusiastic royalist or sceptical republican, we hold.
First, there will be the oleaginous and sycophantic tones of the commentators. The late Tom Fleming, who had a wonderfully resonant voice which was regularly used to grace state occasions, will be missing. We will also be deprived of a member of the Dimbleby dynasty – almost a royal family in itself – as Huw Edwards has been chosen over David Dimbleby as the main presenter. I expect that Nicholas Witchell, the BBC royal correspondent, will feature, probably in a minor role as Prince Charles once, during a photo call with his sons, referred to him as an ‘awful man’.
To its credit, the BBC has kept Witchell on in that position rather than assigned him to other duties. I do, however, harbour the hope that when he comes to make his final report as royal correspondent, he allows himself to indulge in a little irony at the expense of those royals who have treated him arrogantly.
As far as the young couple themselves are concerned, I certainly have no desire to see anything that would spoil their day and happily join in the general good wishes for their future. Kate Middleton seems a pleasant young woman who carried out her recent public engagement in St Andrews with style and aplomb. However, as a commoner, albeit one from a privileged background, she is likely to encounter some resentment from those aristocrats for whom ‘breeding’ is all, and I hope she is strong-minded enough to treat them as they deserve.
Prince William has acquired the easy assurance of people born to privilege and will doubtless cope with the demands of a grand public spectacle with confidence. I once nearly bumped into him some years ago when he was a student at St Andrews University and I was on a brief visit to the town. I was leaving a newsagents as he was entering. Before I had time to think of a cheery greeting, I became aware of a figure over his left shoulder, easily identifiable as the sort of well-groomed thug who fulfils ‘minder’ duties for the establishment. Prudence (and a desire to remain in one piece) overcame the impulse to attempt badinage and I remained silent.
Should the marriage run into difficulty, in the way that other royal marriages have – and in this they are no different from large sections of the population – it will not just be a personal tragedy for the two principal parties.
The real entertainment will come from the supporting cast of royals and other guests. There is always the possibility that Prince Philip will attempt a witticism with foreign dignitaries which they might regard as offensive. Then there are the celebrities who will turn up in ‘statement’ outfits which do not quite come off: the statement will be ‘Look what a prat I am’.
Television viewers will be presented with a vast galaxy of the name-dropping classes: ancient dowagers shipped in from the shires, reminiscing about their ‘coming out’ (in the old-fashioned sense); decrepit dukes wittering on about lineage and precedence; politicians exchanging fictions about other great occasions in which they have played a part; irrepressible toadies seeking to ingratiate themselves with the rich and powerful, thereby extending their careers as social parasites; retired diplomats and military figures enjoying a welcome break from writing memoirs in which they settle old scores and present themselves as stout defenders of everything that is British. Put it all together and there is the delicious prospect of a festival of fun.
To readers who may be offended by my approach to the occasion, let me freely acknowledge that many people greatly enjoy national ceremonial events: they provide colour and spectacle which contrasts with the routine and dullness of much everyday life. For others, however, such events can seem like showing off, an expression of privilege and glamour which most citizens cannot aspire to. Such an attitude may be dismissed as a relic of oppressive Puritanism or evidence of the politics of envy. But underlying the contrasting views of those who will relish the glitz of the occasion and those who will regard it as an indulgent diversion from the important questions of our time, there are serious issues about the evolving nature of our democratic system of government.
The royal wedding needs to be seen not simply as a personal commitment on the part of Prince William and Kate Middleton. It is also a significant investment in the future of royalty as an institution and a symbolic expression of power. For the establishment, rather a lot rests on it. Should the marriage run into difficulty, in the way that other royal marriages have – and in this they are no different from large sections of the population – it will not just be a personal tragedy for the two principal parties. It could have wider repercussions for the way monarchy is viewed by the general public – not as a beacon of constancy in an uncertain political world but as fragile and fallible, lacking the permanence it was once assumed to have. There is no certainty that the long reign of the present queen will be a pattern that holds in the future.
Writing about Queen Elizabeth II is a delicate matter. The expectation now is that her name will be uttered only with a reverential hush. Commentators are always careful to pay tribute to her great sense of duty, her long years of public service, the political stability that her constitutional role provides, and her symbolic function as head of the Commonwealth. She has rarely put a foot wrong in terms of maintaining and consolidating the position of the monarchy.
The one notable exception was her misjudgement of the public mood following the death of Princess Diana when, for a few days, there was a danger that anti-royal sentiments might develop into serious protests and raise challenging questions about the value of the institution. She will be a hard act to follow, whether her immediate successor is Prince Charles or Prince William.
In the meantime, we have several weeks of wedding preparations and speculations to negotiate, before the big day itself. I shall not be buying any memorabilia, or setting up a window display to mark the occasion, but I am sure I will find much to make me chuckle in the weeks that lie ahead.
Prior to his retirement Walter Humes held professorships at the universities of Aberdeen, Strathclyde and West of Scotland. He is now a visiting professor of education at the University of Stirling
